asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects health authorities to be in a position to formulate definite financial plans for the financial year 1981–82.

I hope to be able to notify regional health authorities of their volume allocations for capital and revenue within the next few days.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Kent area health authority has published contingency plans for a 2 per cent, cut, based on the possibility of underfunding of the amount in the coming year? Does he agree that the authority is being unduly alarmist? Does he also agree, however, that it emphasises the importance of moderate wage settlements within the cash limits?

It is always wise for treasurers to make reasonable provisions, because the future cannot be known with certainty. I certainly agree that when we set the cash limits it will be most important that settlements are made within the cash limit factor, because otherwise the money will have to come out of services for patients.

In the context of financial planning, has my right hon. Friend met with any success in dealing with the well-documented suggestions that there is fairly wide-scale abuse by hospital staff, particularly in the pilfering of hospital equipment and food and the making of false claims for overtime by maintenance and ancillary staff? Is he aware that it is said that the cost to the NHS is at least £50 million a year? Will he comment on that?

If my hon. Friend has any evidence to support those allegations, they should be investigated by local health authorities, which are maintaining tight security on such matters. If it is suspected that pilfering is going on, it is right that they should do that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the financial position of the Trent regional authority, which has been the Cinderella authority for a considerable time? Is he making any provision in the financial arrangements to enable the Trent authority to catch up with the others?

The hon. Gentleman knows that in the current year the increase in the volume allocation to the Trent authority was twice that of the four Thames regions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the treatment provided within the National Health Service for newly born handicapped children.

No, Sir. We always hope to see still further improvements. The House will be pleased to know that there has been a major reduction in the perinatal mortality rate in the past five years from 20·3 per 1,000 in 1974 to 14·7 in 1979.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to allegations that lethal doses of the sedative DF 118 have been administered to newly born handicapped children? If so, what action does he propose to take on that matter, which is of great concern to those of us who are intensly interested in the handicapped from birth onwards?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that subject, which is a matter of considerable concern. We are looking into the implications.

Is it not time that there was a statutory duty imposed on the NHS to acquaint the parents of handicapped children with the names and addresses of voluntary organisations that support the handicaps in question?

There is already a wide range of services available from the statutory agencies, including multi-disciplinary assessments, treatment and advice. I shall gladly look into the matter if the hon. Gentleman will tell me what he has in mind.

While acknowledging that there has been an overall improvement in the perinatal mortality rates, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there are still substantial regional variations? With regard to the care of neonates, will the Minister take the advice offered by the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and consider multi-disciplinary analysis of the needs of the handicapped neonates?

Yes, that is a very important part of our programme for helping newly born handicapped children. This is now one of the most important current developments in paediatric care, and one which I think all hon. Members will want to see developed further.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the events which he intends to attend in connection with the International Year of Disabled People.

Invitations are now being received, and I intend to accept as many as possible around the country which are connected with the International Year of Disabled People.

I hope that when the Minister goes to the functions to which he has been invited, the people who are there will make it clear to him how disappointed they are at the measures for disabled people which the Government have announced. On one of these occasions, as he has not been able to do so in the House, will he give his Department's views on NIAC's proposals for the non-contributory household duties test?

I am aware of the difficulties that the previous Administration ran into on this matter. I am also aware that the council asked for a review to be carried out on the alternative test that might be applicable. That review is being carried out at the moment. As the committee suggested, we are also considering what is being done in other countries. As soon as the review has been completed, we shall bring the matter before the House.

Will my hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that the International Year of Disabled People is marked by a new initiative on the part of the Government—albeit modest in expenditure—to make certain that progress in this important area is maintained?

We are anxious to do whatever we can to help the disabled, but we must have regard to the current economic situation. It is difficult to find resources that we can apply to new types of assistance. We place great emphasis on the importance of trying to draw the attention of the public to the disabled and to seek to change general attitudes.

Would it be a constructive contribution to the International Year of Disabled People if the Minister could arrange a special conference between the directors of social services and the managers of social security offices, to discuss the impact on disabled people of cuts in social services, a new scheme for supplementary benefit and their views on the need for a statutory additional cost allowance?

That is an interesting suggestion. I shall consider the matter to see whether it is possible to call a conference to discuss ways in which it is possible, within the present economic restraints, to give help to the disabled.

Will my hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming and give a pledge to meet the representatives of parents of severely mentally handicapped children who look after those children at home, and confirm that, no matter how limited the resources of the Government, these parents should be given the help they need and deserve, perhaps above many other causes?

I am aware of that problem because within my constituency I have been interested in the work of a voluntary organisation concerned with mentally and physically handicapped children. I shall always keep my door open to representations and do the best I possibly can to help, within the restraints of the economy.

In this International Year of Disabled People, will the Minister give the House an undertaking to have discussions with some of his ministerial colleagues, including Ministers from the Department of Trade, and some of the major insurance companies about the problems mentally handicapped children have in obtaining insurance? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of my constituents have made representations to me on that matter? I should be grateful if the Minister would make a statement.

I shall look into that matter if the hon. Member will send me the details.

The Minister will have seen from the many recent press reports that the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation is considering, with other major voluntary organisations, whether legal action should be taken against local authorities which are failing to discharge their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. What action does the Minister propose to take against defaulting authorities? May we take it that he will work in the closest possible rapport with the voluntary sector in insisting on the full and humane implementation of that Act?

Under the Act, there is a statutory obligation on local authorities. The sanctions exist under the Act. Court proceedings are contemplated. We shall see what the results of those proceedings is. There is always a reserve power in the hands of my right hon. Friend. When matters are appropriate, the use of those powers will be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of those entitled to receive child benefit are receiving it.

It is estimated that virtually 100 per cent, of those entitled to child benefit are receiving it.

The situation is obviously satisfactory, but would my hon. Friend care to estimate what percentage of one-parent families are in receipt of the extra amount of child benefit? What steps are being taken to improve that?

The take-up of the child benefit increase is estimated to be about 60 per cent, at the moment. We are not satisfied with that amount. My hon. Friend will have seen that I answered a question on 22 January announcing a change of name from "child benefit increase" to "one parent benefit," which will take place in April. Inevitably, there will be associated publicity with the change of name. We shall consider further steps to make as many single parents as possible aware that they should make a claim for one-parent benefit. Any help that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members can give will be much welcomed.

Would not the Under-Secretary agree that there is a strong contrast between the enthusiasm with which the Government have pursued fraud and their failure to develop take-up of benefits, particularly with reference to the attacks made on the local authority in Strathclyde? Strathclyde's necessary measure to increase take-up has been successful. Would she not further agree that the appalling figure of only 60 per cent, take-up in single parent families requires special measures beyond that of renaming the increase?

On 1 December 1978, there were 306,000 recipients of child benefit increase. That figure increased to 384,000 by 18 December 1979, and on 17 December 1980, there were 443,000. That is an increase on the previous figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that whenever someone is entitled to child benefit increase—as it is known at the moment—he must make a claim for it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that she and her Department will continue to press the Treasury to uprate child benefit in line with inflation at all opportunities, given its many advantages, which all hon. Members recognise?

I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of the comments of my hon. Friend.

Will not the Minister agree that one of the reasons why the take-up of child benefit is better and greater than that of other benefits is that the benefit is not means tested? Does that not demonstrate that many more benefits would be taken up if there were no means tests?

Child benefit is not means tested, and neither is child benefit increase. If one follows the hon. Gentleman's analogy there is no reason why we should not have a better take-up of child benefit increase. He knows—and the House knows—that we now spend about £3,300 million on child benefit. All non-means tested benefits are extremely expensive. We use means tested benefits to help those who are most in need. We hope that people will make their applications where they are so entitled.

In a spirit of total helpfulness, may I suggest that the Government could save some of the £1 ½ million that they are currently spending on advertising indexed-linked retirement certificates, which are a rotten bargain by any standards, and use the money to advertise single-parent family benefits so that they may be claimed in full?

I shall certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the notice of the Treasury?

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take immediate steps to diminish the difference in the quality of care and attention that the different sections of society receive from the National Health Service, in response to the report "Inequalities of Health".

The Black report does not confirm that there are significant differences in the quality of care and attention received by different sections of society. The hon. Gentleman's question therefore does not arise.

Will the Secretary of State accept that I am appalled by his reply? Is he aware that, although the Black report does not give much encouragement to those of us on the Opposition Benches either, at least we recognise that it is dynamite? Will he reconsider his glib response to a report that he deliberately hushed up because it showed that working men and women cannot take advantage of the benefits of a longer and healthier life, which are their due?

To send 100 copies of the Black report to the national and regional press and the broadcasting authorities is a pretty funny way of "hushing" it up.

Does the Secretary of State agree that so far the redistribution of resources to the Northern region is completely inadequate in the light of the problems in an area of such high unemployment? Will he undertake that in the next review of his budget he will do very much better?

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I wish that we could achieve a faster distribution to the regions that are less well provided for, but the speed of the redistribution must depend on the growth precisely as planned by our predecessors. It does not leave much room for redistribution from the well provided areas to the less well provided areas.

How can the Secretary of State deny that the report shows gross inequality in health between the poorer and better-off families? Is it not time to make a concerted effort to break once and for all the connection between health and wealth

That was not the question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). It concerned the quality of care and attention that different sections of society receive from the National Health Service. My Department's research has been reinforced by the work done by Professor Rudolph Klein and Elizabeth Collins. It shows that there is no difference between the quality of care given by the National Health Service in different regions and to different classes. However, I am still waiting to hear from the Opposition how it is that, 30 years after the NHS came into existence, the inequalities of which the hon. Gentleman speaks are as bad as they ever were, and in some cases worse.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions he has been informed of a conflict between managerial responsbilities and trade union activities in the National Health Service.

I would not usually expect to be informed about this type of management issue, which is for health authorities to resolve. One recent incident was brought to my notice by the press.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman's Department issued a secret instruction to regional hospital authorities asking them to report on the extent of the involvement of managerial staff in trade union activities, which is trespassing on their rights under the Employment Act? What is going on in that regard in his Department?

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first two questions are "No, Sir" and "No, Sir". The vast majority of people in the National Health Service recognise the potential conflict between management responsibilities and active trade union participation. Fortunately, the problem arises very rarely indeed. I have given no instructions to anyone about it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence shows that there is far less conflict between management and trade union activities when the ancillary services in the Health Service are run by private enterprise and not direct labour? What steps is he taking to encourage the greater use of private enterprise in the Health Service?

My hon. Friend is most assiduous in drawing that important development to our attention. I assure him that my hon. Friends and I lose no opportunity to impress on health authorities the desirability of getting the best possible bargain for the provision of ancillary services and the fact that they should look to the private sector when they believe that they can get a better bargain instead of employing their own staff directly.

Is the Minister aware that the continuing short-changing of the NHS by the Government is producing a situation where there is bound to be conflict between management in the NHS and Health Service workers? Will he and his colleagues please give up their Scrooge-like attitude so that we can have a decent Health Service at long last?

The hon. Gentleman must know that the expenditure projections of this Government are precisely in line with those of our predecessors. He should direct his criticisms to his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals).

Why is the Secretary of State being so coy about the document issued in November? May I remind him that he asked regional personnel officers to report on the extent to which managerial staff are engaged in trade union activities? Why did he want that information?

The hon. Gentleman no doubt had his attention drawn to the case of the sector administrator in one hospital who was being disciplined becase she took action on a picket line, picketing another hospital in the same district. Her managament considered that that was inconsistent with her management obligations. She was a local COHSE chairman. It seemed to me in those circumstances that it might be wise to see whether such a situation was widespread. I am happy to say that it is not. I have issued no instructions to anyone about the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost to the National Health Service in the past 12 months of the employment of agency nurses.

In the financial year 1979–80, the cost of employing agency nurses in the NHS amounted to £30·3 million.

Does the Minister accept that in certain circumstances such expenditure could be wasteful, because other hospitals often do not have the financial resources to employ the number of NHS nurses that they need? Does he accept that it is in a sense another example of a hidden subsidy from the NHS to the private sector, since most of the nurses will have been trained by the NHS?

I do not accept that. We are talking about relatively small numbers—some 4,300 agency nurses working in the NHS. On average, the total cost of an agency nurse is very little different from that of a directly employed nurse.

Will the Minister examine the problems that occur where agency nurses have to be used? Is he aware that, for example, in Kensington and Chelsea, 1,200 private beds already exist, with another 349 in the pipeline, a situation which is leading to an acute shortage of nursing staff, particularly specialist nurses? Does he realise that the problem exists throughout London? Will he accept that the drain of nurses to look after private patients is forcing the NHS to employ agency nurses?

I do not accept that. The majority of nurses working with agencies do so because the system is more flexible. They can make better provision for their personal needs in terms of working hours and availability during the week. The hon. Gentleman is correct about London. About 90 per cent, of agency nurses are working in the London region.

Is the Minister aware that where agency nurses are employed alongside NHS nurses there is a great deal of ill-feeling? With the encouragement that the Minister is giving to private practice, shall we not soon reach the position where NHS nurses are paid considerably less than agency nurses, but will be providing, if only by default, services for the private sector?

I do not know where the hon. Lady gets her information. I know of no great friction or rivalry between agency nurses and general nurses working in the NHS. No nurse likes to have a strange nurse who does not understand the layout in the ward and we are very conscious of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the net change in the number of official bodies to which he makes appointments, other than civil servants, resulting from the abolition of the area health authorities.

At present I appoint the chairmen of 90 area health authorities. In order to achieve our aim of much more local decision taking in the Health Service, those will be replaced by between 180 and 200 district health authorities, whose chairmen will again be appointed by me.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that when his Department seeks solutions to problems in the Health Service it invariably ends up with either more official bodies or more official appointments—or both? Does the DHSS find considerable pleasure in dancing the quango with its basic one step forward and two steps back? Will he try to stimulate a little more enthusiasm for that healthier outdoor pursuit, hunting the quango?

I am sure that the House admires the work of my hon. Friend in his pursuit of the case for reducing the number of official bodies. The logic of his argument about health authorities is that the National Health Service should be run not by health authorities but directly by my Department. That would give rise to a wholly unacceptable and unworkable degree of centralisation. I am sure that both the House and the Health Service want a greater degree of decentralisation. That must postulate more local health authorities.

Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied with the balance between the provision of services and the recruitment of personnel to the NHS, bearing in mind that the NHS has continued its recruitment every year for the past 20 years, and last year alone increased its numbers by some 25,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for a careful check on the numbers employed in the NHS to determine whether it needs, for example, so many clerks and administrators?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. I am sure that he recognises that in a programme such as that of the NHS, which is virtually the only programme that is growing during this period of severe economic restraint, and where 70 per cent, of costs are manpower costs, the growth of its services inevitably means growth in the number of doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitors, and all the other health care professionals who provide a service for patients. We are maintaining a very tight control on administrative costs. During the course of the reorganisation we shall be looking for significant savings in administration through the application of firm administrative cost limits. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to cut the cost of administration in the Health Service.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since reorganisation of the NHS the St. Helens and Knowsley area health authority has done a tremendous job in reorganising all the requirements in the NHS? Does he realise that to abolish an area health authority such as that would be nothing less than scandalous?

I have not yet received proposals from the regional health authority. I shall consider them carefully when they arrive, and take account of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Is it not the case that the NHS needs good administrators, not necessarily fewer administrators? Will the Minister take on board the fact that if he continually seeks both to bully the trade unions in the NHS and constantly to have a go at the administration, he will not get the professional service that he purports to seek?

I agree that we need the highest quality of management in the NHS that we can secure. I deny entirely that I am bullying the trade unions. I happen to enjoy an extremely good relationship both with the health services committee of the TUC and with the individual unions involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services whether he will now announce his decision on the future administrative structure of the National Health Service in Leicestershire.

No, Sir. Regional health authorities have been asked to submit proposals for the future pattern of district health authorities in their regions by the end of February. We have not yet received Trent regional health authority's proposals.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Trent region's restructuring committee has officially recommended a single district authority for the county of Leicestershire, and that that proposal has wide support in the medical and allied professions in the county? Will he confirm that exceeding the 500,000 maximum target will be permitted in exceptional circumstances?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. There would have to be exceptional circumstances for a new district health authority to serve a population of more than 500,000. However, special reasons may be involved, and we shall consider them when the proposals are put to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce measures to encourage the membership of private health insurance schemes.

The Government aim to encourage the development of independent health care as a worthwhile contribution to meeting the health needs of the nation. Recent figures suggest that we are succeeding.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year private patients saved the taxpayer £86 million? Is he now in a position to accept the recommendation contained in the report commissioned by his Department to the effect that a study be made of the reasons why so many individuals, firms and trade unions are opting for private care?

I am not in a position to confirm or deny the figures given by my hon. Friend. It is clear that a large number of people recognise the sense of making private provision for health care including, as my hon. Friend mentioned, a number of trade unions. In recent opinion poll, when trade union members were asked whether they would accept private health insurance as part of their employment package, two-thirds said that they would be happy to accept such an offer if it were made.

Does not the Secretary of State accept that the old, the chronically sick and the disabled are the very people who will not be accepted by private insurance schemes? In so far as the Government intend to finance the NHS basically by private insurance, does he realise that that will be a fundamental destruction of the Christian principles on which the NHS is based?

The hon. Gentleman persists in missing the point. If private insurance and private care can relieve the NHS of some part of acute in-patient care, that leaves more resources for the NHS to spend on those who do not have private care, which includes the Cinderella services for the elderly and the handicapped. That must be true.

Will my right hon. Friend indicate the implications for NHS hospital waiting lists if there were no private health care schemes available?

My hon. Friend is right. For non-urgent operations such as orthopaedic operations, hip transplants and so on, if there were no private beds and no private hospitals, inevitably NHS waiting lists would be much longer.

Is the Secretary of State seriously suggestion that robbing the NHS of consultants and other personnel, trained by the taxpayer in Britain, does not diminish the services of the NHS? Is he not aware, for example, that the use of the Princess Margaret hospital in my area to beckon people from America for private care is having a detrimental effect upon the NHS services?

Private insurance and private health care bring more resources to the health needs of the nation—money that would not otherwise be spent—and, therefore, allow the employment of more consultants and more nurses in the NHS. The Opposition persist in playing a zero sum game. It is not the case. It brings extra resources to health care.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet determined the size of the grant he proposes to make to MIND for 1981–82.

No, Sir. MIND has not yet made an application for a grant for 1981–82.

Responding to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when my right hon. Friend comes to settle the grant will he remember the fine work carries out by the local groups of MIND? Will he simply confine his representations to the headquarters of that organisation, and say that next time it makes accusations—and I have been warned that there are more to come—against the medical and nursing staff of a hospital, it should do so quietly and professionally and not by way of a public press conference designed to secure the maximum hurt to people who are at least as much concerned as MIND with the care of the mentally ill?

Last Friday I paid a visit to Rampton hospital, not to Broadmoor in my hon. Friend's constituency. I should like to tell the House, as I said to the press after my visit, that I was enormously impressed by the devoted care given by the staff, particularly the nurses, at that hospital, to some of the unfortunate and difficult people who are entrusted to their charge. Those who make accusations of brutality or other malpractice on the part of staff who have those heavy responsibilities owe it to the staff, the public and the service as a whole to do so in the most careful, responsible and well researched manner. If my hon. Friend's campaign, for such it is, can lead those who are tempted to make these charges to do so in such a way, it will have served a valuable purpose.

When the Secretary of State considers the application from MIND, will he be quite uninfluenced by the campaign of abuse and denigration, in some cases against individuals who work for MIND, under the protection of parliamentary privilege and not publicly where it could be challenged? Will he be uninfluenced by such a campaign that can bring only disrepute to the House and to our time honoured principle of privilege?

I intend to follow the four considerations that I set out in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 1 July 1980, namely our priority for mental health, our high opinion of MIND's work especially by its branches, our assessment of its income and expenditure and our general policy on grants under section 64.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were in receipt of supplementary benefit in the last week for which statistics are available; and what are the most recent projections made by his Department of the average number of recipients in each of the next three financial years.

About 3,200,000 claimants, including school leavers, in August 1980. The most recent published projections for the next three years were given in the 1979 public expenditure White Paper published in March 1980—"The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81 to 1983–84" Cmnd. 7841 table 2.12.2 on pages 114–115.

Does the Minister agree that a large proportion of the increases in supplementary benefits is due to the rise in the number of unemployed? Is it not the case that the real value of the flat-rate benefits has been cut and that the projections include the abolition of the earnings related supplement? Does she agree that it is a disgrace that people are being subjected to the indignity of means-tested benefits, which will be more expensive for the Government? Does she agree that it would be better to restore the flat rate benefits and stop the abolition of the earnings-related supplement?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House knows full well that the measures that have to be taken are not against the unemployed but are intended to bring our public expenditure under control. We estimate that the total number of supplementary benefit claimants, as a result of all the measures, will be about 110,000. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to paint the abatement in unemployment benefit as he did. It is a temporary measure pending taxation which all parties in the House have agreed.

Is it not an appalling indictment of the Government that their economic and social policies to deal with the economic catastrophe are putting more and more people on to means-tested benefits? Was not the Welfare State constructed on the basis of rights? Is not the hon. Lady replacing that with a mean and squalid form of support? In a single Bill last year 110,000 more people were shoved away from rights on to the means-tested benefits? Is that not a disgrace?

The House knows that unless we reduce inflation the value of benefits has no real meaning for the people who have to receive them. We know that inflation hits poor people harder than others. We have given full price protection to the recipients of the safety net benefits, the family income supplement and supplementary benefit. In simplifying the supplementary benefit scheme we have directed more resources to those who need it, such as families with children. Nobody welcomes the present number of unemployed and the Government are doing their best to reduce inflation and public expenditure so as to bring down the rate of unemployment as fast as we can.

What action is the Department taking about those who, because they have been unemployed for 12 months, have lost their benefit? I have drawn attention to these cases previously. They receive social- security benefit but have now been informed that because they will not attend a re-settlement camp at Henley-in-Arden they are to be denied any income. What action are the Government taking?

Although I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before Christmas on this matter, he gave me the details in the middle of last month. Since I received his letter on 12 January I have had a full investigation made in to the section 10 directions on his two constituents. I shall be writing to him in a few days to let him know the outcome, what has happened and what should happen.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 3 February.

Inaddition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Will the Prime Minister confirm what she said on Weekend Television last Sunday, when she suggested that if unemployment reached 3 million or even 4 million she would not change her policies? Does she recall that in the 1930s high unemployment and low rates of inflation co-existed? Will she tell the House whether there is any rate of inflation at which her Government's economic priorities will tackle unemployment?

I am glad to re-affirm what I said on television, that the way to provide sound, long term jobs in the future is to fight inflation now and to continue to fight it.

Referring to the continuing challenge to the Communist monopoly in Poland, when my right hon. Friend meets President Reagan later this month will she discuss with him whether it would be better now rather than after the event for the West to spell out the nature of the retaliation that we would take against the Soviets in the event of their intervention in Poland?

I shall discuss all these matters with President Reagan. But I would counsel caution on the course which my hon. Friend, no doubt with the best of intentions, would have me pursue.

Does the most regrettable re-affirmation by the right hon. Lady of what she said on television on Sunday mean that when she goes to the meeting of NEDO tomorrow she will flatly refuse to examine the alternative policies put forward by the TUC or by the CBI? What will be the purpose of the meeting if she is not going there to listen?

If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in securing better long-term prospects for jobs he will fight inflation now. If he is not interested in better long-term prospects for jobs, he will retreat to the short-term expedient of reflating and printing money now. With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I shall be going to Neddy to take the chair, as I do once a year. That was arranged long before the TUC document. Doubtless it will wish to raise some of the things in that document in the discussion on industrial policy.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate, as she has already had a copy of the TUC document, that it explains how she, under her unique arrangements, has managed to achieve the combination of a far worse recession in this country than in most other countries combined with a higher rate of inflation than most of our competitors? Will she explain how she has achieved that? Will she also tell us whether she is taking that body

If the right hon. Gentleman examines the inflation figures he will find that the rate of inflation is falling comparatively fast here when it is still rising in other countries. If he looks at his Government's record on inflation he will find that when they had been in Government for 20 or 21 months the inflation rate was 24 per cent.

Since the right hon. Lady continues to boast about what she has done about inflation, will she tell us the inflation figure that was left to the Labour Government in 1974 and the figure that we left her?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's precise question, the figure was 10·1 per cent, in April 1979. That figure followed an average inflation—[Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish me to be selective but to give the whole figure. That followed an average rate of inflation in 1975 of 24·2 per cent., in 1976 of 16·5 per cent, and in 1977 of 15·8 percent. Those were three years when it was much worse than it was in our first year—in 1979, when it was 13·4 per cent.

As the Prime Minister refused to report to the House about her meeting with Charles Haughey in Dublin, and now that she has announced joint studies, will she say where they are taking place? How many civil servants from the United Kingdom and from the Irish Republic are taking part in the joint studies? Will she not push under the counter this most important question for the people of Northern Ireland as she did yesterday when a colleague asked a question?

The studies, which have just started, are taking place in the capitals of the respective countries—London and Dublin. Ministers will, of course, keep a close watch on progress.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 February.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Will the Prime Minister spend a few minutes looking at the survey which shows that the chairmen and managing directors of many large companies are giving themselves 40 per cent, wage increases when they are preaching wage restraint and putting thousands of their own workers on to the dole queues? Will she condemn such divisive action? If there is to be a tax clawback in the Budget will she ensure that these very rich men, who have received massive tax handouts from her Government, are the first to pay?

I cannot emphasise too often that it is vital, at whatever level of employment in a commercial or industrial company, that increases in pay go hand in hand with increases in productivity.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since last summer the rate of inflation has been lower than that of the average of our EEC and OECD competitors? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, most regrettably, since then the percentage increases in unemployment in Germany, France and the Netherlands have also been much higher than in this country?

It is true that the recession hit different countries at different rates and at different times. The percentage increase in unemployment in Germany, Denmark and Holland between August and December rose faster than in this country in the same period.

Has the Prime Minister had time to read the article in The Times today which suggests that the tax burden of the average individual increased by 10 per cent, in the last two years that she has been in office? Can she confirm that figure? If it is correct does she regard it as part of the battle against inflation?

If my memory serves me correctly that figure was of the overall tax burden, including, of course, the considerable tax levied on North Sea oil revenues. The right hon. Gentleman is always trying to persuade me to put up public expenditure. The last Labour Government also wanted increased public spending. Had we followed his or their advice the tax burden now would be much worse.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that computer staffs in the public service are under extreme pressure from trade unions in the public sector to act as latterday storm troopers in fighting the Government's policy? Does she accept that such sabotage will in the long term only do damage to the standing of computer professions and to the efficiency of information processing in the public sector?

It is absolutely vital in the public sector, as elsewhere, that we use all technology to its maximum extent and that the highest traditions of the public service are honoured in that as in other spheres of the Civil Service.

Will the Prime Minister reflect on the devastating effects of her policies on the people of this country? Notwithstanding what she said on television at the weekend, will she take time off to look in the mirror and ask "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, could I be the wrongest of them all?"

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the management and work force of John Brown Engineering, a firm of major importance in West Central Scotland, on achieving a £25 million new export order? Since the company was able to achieve that because of the responsible 7 percent, wage settlement last October, does she agree that it demonstrates the increasing climate of responsibility and co-operation which is enabling British industry to increase its competitiveness in world markets?

I gladly congratulate that firm, both on the achievement of that export order and on the realistic attitude of its work force which led to that achievement. Having seen that report and having made further inquiries today, I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that that firm announced today a further export order for £35 million. Many congratulations.

May I refer to the Prime Minister's forthcoming meeting with President Reagan? Do the Government have it in mind to seek, with the President, to bring the maximum pressure to bear on the Republic of South Africa to reopen negotiations on Namibia which have broken down through the wholly inexcusably intransigence of the South African Government? Will she raise the question of incursions into Mozambique which the Republic has embarked upon?

We are all anxious to try to bring about a solution to the Namibia problem and to bring Namibia to independence. I shall raise that subject in a way which I hope will achieve as near a solution to that problem as possible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while a Bill gives details in the explanatory and financial memorandum of its manpower implications, insufficient machinery exists for monitoring staffing levels once the legislation is enacted? Will she take steps to improve that monitoring?

I am aware that the monitoring of the numbers of people involved in the provisions of a particular Bill is not necessarily exact. As my hon. Friend knows, we are putting more effort into increased efficiency in the Civil Service. The Civil Service itself is working with a will towards that end. We have reduced the numbers in the Civil Service by 35,000 since we came to power. I cannot emphasise too strongly that many young and older people in the civil service are determined to secure the most efficient administration of any country and they are co-operating fully in that effort.

Has the right hon. Lady had an opportunity yet to consider what Prime Minister Trudeau has said about the undertakings that she is supposed to have given last June about repatriating the Canadian constitution to Canada? Does she intend to impose a three-line Whip? What advice would the Prime Minister give to the House when President Trudeau is so unsure of the smell of his legislation that he says that we should hold our noses while we let it pass?

Matters concerning three-line Whips are not usually discussed until we have the business before us for the next week. We have not yet received a request from the Government or Parliament of Canada. I take the view that I have always taken, that when we receive a request from the Government and Parliament of Canada we have to deal with it as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with precedent and with the law.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take your mind back to a reply to question No. 7 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)? He asked the Secretary' of State about the existence of a memorandum issued by the DHSS seeking imformation on trade union activities of individuals employed in the National Health Service. The Secretary of State denied the existence of any such memorandum, and yet a few moments later, in reply to a further question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) he went into great detail about an incident that had arisen, leading to the existence of the memorandum. What safeguard do Back Benchers have against deliberately misleading information from the Secretary of State?

I heard the exchange, the hon. Gentleman heard the exchange, and there is no point of order on which I can give a ruling in that regard.